[Tim Martin]

Under the current system in Europe if you don’t play in any competitions then you can’t obtain a handicap. The associations that administer the handicap protocols have decided that if a player doesn’t play competitively they not only don’t need a handicap but they can’t get one. Is this correct?

[Kalen Braley]

Lou, Perhaps I missed it.

But how does one game the CONGU system, outside of when you first gain a handicap?  And how often does this occur?

I seem to keep reading similar posts over and over that nothing is perfect and no there is no need to change.  While I agree with the first part,  CONGU seems to be leaps and bounds better than the USGA sandbagging mess. Isn't that reason enough to upgrade?

[Sean_A]

Under the current system in Europe if you don’t play in any competitions then you can’t obtain a handicap. The associations that administer the handicap protocols have decided that if a player doesn’t play competitively they not only don’t need a handicap but they can’t get one. Is this correct?

Tim

At least in England, each club sets the minimum number of comps which must be played for golfers to retain a valid handicap.  If a handicap lapses, once the minimum number of cards are posted the handicap is validated.  Often times, if club members do not have the minimum requirement they are not allowed to play trophy/knockout events.  A few years ago the concept of submitting scores from friendly games was introduced(I think mainly in prep for the new international system).  I think most of the time these cards tend to be from weekly stableford roll-ups.  The idea being there is no excuse for not posting enough scores. 

You are right, if a club member chooses not to play comps he is not obligated to maintain a handicap...some guys (usually older) don't bother.

There used to be a system sponsored by the EGU whereby one could become an associate member without joining a club for the purposes of obtaining a handicap...which then allowed golfers to play in open events.  I think once the hard times hit and club membership started to fall, the program was dropped because it could encourage golfers to drop their membership.  I am not certain the EGU fully thought this one through when the idea was introduced!

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don't believe a bunch of hacks on holiday is a good reason tear down tried, tested and successful systems.

Maybe the golf organizations have a different opinion than you, and maybe they feel the U.S. system and the forthcoming WHS is better. Maybe they want more people with handicaps, not just those who play in competitions?

But how does one game the CONGU system, outside of when you first gain a handicap?  And how often does this occur?

Isn't it possible to get a high initial handicap, improve, and enter and win a few tournaments before your handicap catches up to you?

I seem to keep reading similar posts over and over that nothing is perfect and no there is no need to change.  While I agree with the first part,  CONGU seems to be leaps and bounds better than the USGA sandbagging mess. Isn't that reason enough to upgrade?

I still think the "sandbagging" issue in the U.S. is exaggerated.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou, Perhaps I missed it.

But how does one game the CONGU system, outside of when you first gain a handicap?  And how often does this occur?

I seem to keep reading similar posts over and over that nothing is perfect and no there is no need to change.  While I agree with the first part,  CONGU seems to be leaps and bounds better than the USGA sandbagging mess. Isn't that reason enough to upgrade?

Misunderstanding.  By straight I mean a handicap which reflects current ability or potential, which is based on relatively recent activity.  I suppose you could game the system by posting higher scores in tournaments where you're going to finish out of the money anyways. 


The reason CONGU wouldn't work in the U.S. is as Jim H noted, we just do not play enough medal tournaments and I am doubtful that this would change by force. I do believe that U.S. handicaps tend to be too low and perhaps measure something different than CONGU.  Playing straight up, a 6 with a 6, I'd expect the UK player to have a 2-3 stroke advantage, c.p. (holding everything else equal).

I don't have a great interest in handicapping, so I am fine with the current tinkering.  If someone can explain the nuts and bolts of the proposed algorithmic adjustment for playing conditions, I am all ears.

[Kalen Braley]

Lou,


This may be where the disconnect is happening.  My perspective is 95% of my golf occurs at Public courses and 100% of the tournies I've entered..(outside of GCA events), has been stroke play where anyone can enter with a USGA handicap and entry fee. 


But given there are far more public courses and golfers that play them vs private, is my perspective more representative of the state of golf in the US?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Under the new system will we still be able to post on-line? I enter every score, whether or not it is at my home course,

[Sean_A]

I don't believe a bunch of hacks on holiday is a good reason tear down tried, tested and successful systems.

Maybe the golf organizations have a different opinion than you, and maybe they feel the U.S. system and the forthcoming WHS is better. Maybe they want more people with handicaps, not just those who play in competitions?

Eric

Maybe you are right, but if accuracy (its far harder to scam a handicap in the UK than in the US) and percentage of golfers who hold handicaps are indications, then the only conclusion to be drawn is the US system is very poor.  As for the upcoming system, sure, its obvious a huge concession is being made for US players who do not play enough proper comps to contemplate a CONGU like system.  Maybe more Americans will obtain handicaps, but I don't see how the new system will encourage that.  If the percentage of golfers with handicaps was so low when singles could post scores, I can't see how the new system will change things.  In the UK, it basically comes down to club membership as the ticket for a handicap.  This is treated as a perk of club membership because the golfing associations and clubs recognize the CONGU system....and to obtain a handicap one must belong to a club.

As I said previously, I am a bit mystified about the urgency for an international handicapping deal. I would have thought the resources were better spent on getting women into the game.

Ciao

[Ian Mackenzie]

I still think the "sandbagging" issue in the U.S. is exaggerated.



I think that I like your idealism (probably because you're under 30), but until you see it first-hand, then please continue to take comfort in your naivete...


I see it at the ATT Pebble Pro Am (where I know amateurs who compete and am shocked that "player A" goes in as a "9" when I saw him win a member/guest shooting rounds of 37-37-35.)


It's more like "massaging the index".
Shoot an 81, but post an 82.
Shoot a 76 and "forget" to post it.
Dump a bunch of winter scores in the computer just weeks before a Calcutta.


They dont think it's cheating just like Donald Trump does not think he is ever lying...

[John Kavanaugh]

Ian,


I also play with a guy who has won the Crosby. In our local member/guest he plays a far lower handicap. The Cosby is TV, it pays to have the "right" guys in contention. Come on man, give the sponsors a break.

[Kalen Braley]

Ian,


I also doubt Erik has ever played in a 12-18 flight in a local tourney where a guy is bombing it 280 regular, has lots of birdie looks, and posts a 76....and then does it all over again the next day.  As one who spent years between a 13-16, I've only broke 80 three times, but some guy does it 2-3 rounds in a row, at a tournament...please....

[Tim Martin]

Under the new system will we still be able to post on-line? I enter every score, whether or not it is at my home course,

Tommy-I think internet GHIN posting is a double edged sword. On one hand it is extremely convenient and like you I am a fan. That said it is another vehicle for those that are predisposed to game the system.

[Pete Lavallee]

The reason the CONGU System is immune to sandbagging is simple: shoot 1 stroke above your handicap, no adjustment is made. Shoot anywhere from 2 to 20 above your handicap you go up by 0.1 strokes. You would have to tank 10 straight Tournament rounds to go up by 1 stroke!


Vanity handicaps are hard to attain because Catagoty A players go down by 0.2; shoot a net 67 and you go down 1 stroke (0.2x5=1.0).


I assume all scores are posted by the Club, so individuals are not given access to manipulate the System!

[A.G._Crockett]

Put me solidly in the camp of those who believe that the issue of sandbagging in the existing U.S. system is VASTLY overblown.  And that's not without some data; the USGA estimates, I believe, that there are at least three vanity handicappers for every true sandbagger.
And I say "true" sandbagger because in my experience, the guys that I've known over the years who have been accused of it, have, with one exception, been legitimate indexes who simply played really good golf.  More to the point, perhaps, is that they are guys who simply play by the Rules; they take full strokes under ESC, they putt out, they play the ball down, they take stroke and distance penalties, and so on.  Further, the guys accusing them are often the vanity guys that do NOT do that stuff, then post a lot of scores that are just too low for an index they have no chance of playing to in competition.
The end-of-the-year Carolinas Golf Association Fourball Tournament of Champions was held earlier this month at Pinehurst.  In the Super Senior (65+), the net winner as a team on which on of the guys shot a gross 75 and was getting 13 strokes, for a net 62.  He MUST be a sandbagger, except he isn't.  I've played with him many times, and he's a legit 13 BY THE RULES who plays a lot of competitive golf and had a GREAT day.  But there were people screaming, no doubt about it.
Vanity handicappers want you to think more of them than they really are.  Sandbaggers want you to think less of them than they really are.  Which sort of person do you think there's more of in the world and the game of golf? 

Right, and it ain't even close.

[Jim Hoak]

Don't judge the sandbagging issue by the ATT/Crosby.  As has been said, the amateur side of the tournament is for fun, not strict competition, so certain celebrities may get an advantage for TV and the fans.  But, more importantly, the amateurs are playing better ball with pros, who are playing to 0 handicaps, when they are really +6's or better.  So the amateurs need more strokes just to be relevant to their team.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Put me solidly in the camp of those who believe that the issue of sandbagging in the existing U.S. system is VASTLY overblown.  And that's not without some data; the USGA estimates, I believe, that there are at least three vanity handicappers for every true sandbagger.
And I say "true" sandbagger because in my experience, the guys that I've known over the years who have been accused of it, have, with one exception, been legitimate indexes who simply played really good golf.  More to the point, perhaps, is that they are guys who simply play by the Rules; they take full strokes under ESC, they putt out, they play the ball down, they take stroke and distance penalties, and so on.  Further, the guys accusing them are often the vanity guys that do NOT do that stuff, then post a lot of scores that are just too low for an index they have no chance of playing to in competition.
The end-of-the-year Carolinas Golf Association Fourball Tournament of Champions was held earlier this month at Pinehurst.  In the Super Senior (65+), the net winner as a team on which on of the guys shot a gross 75 and was getting 13 strokes, for a net 62.  He MUST be a sandbagger, except he isn't.  I've played with him many times, and he's a legit 13 BY THE RULES who plays a lot of competitive golf and had a GREAT day.  But there were people screaming, no doubt about it.
Vanity handicappers want you to think more of them than they really are.  Sandbaggers want you to think less of them than they really are.  Which sort of person do you think there's more of in the world and the game of golf? 

Right, and it ain't even close.

AG, I hear you, but then again, I go to data when and where available.
The internet, the iPad, and the GHIN system gives me that at my fingertips.


For guys at your club, you can track their index. Watch what date the member/member tourney is...THE money event at most clubs. Then watch the trending of handicaps the previous two months as it hits a club-wide apex on, as an aexample, June 1 for a June 14/15 two day tourney.


The event ends then watch as many of the indexes slide back to where they were in April.


Yes, I’m jaded as I don’t get any strokes from anyone at my club...
I have never competed well in any of the “socialist events” where charity strokes are given to the less fortunate... ...just to make them feel like they can give you a game....😉


I wish more clubs of all natures adhered to more strict guidelines for score posting.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

This is treated as a perk of club membership because the golfing associations and clubs recognize the CONGU system....and to obtain a handicap one must belong to a club.

That's also true here, but a lot of golfers just pay daily fees or use GolfNow or whatever, without joining clubs.

As I said previously, I am a bit mystified about the urgency for an international handicapping deal. I would have thought the resources were better spent on getting women into the game.

They can do both. USGA/LPGA Girls Golf is a big deal and is getting a lot of younger girls into the game.

I think that I like your idealism (probably because you're under 30), but until you see it first-hand, then please continue to take comfort in your naivete...  

I'm 40.

I also doubt Erik has ever played in a 12-18 flight in a local tourney where a guy is bombing it 280 regular, has lots of birdie looks, and posts a 76....and then does it all over again the next day.  As one who spent years between a 13-16, I've only broke 80 three times, but some guy does it 2-3 rounds in a row, at a tournament...please....

That's one guy. Or two. Honest question: what percentage of golfers do you think are sandbagging (intentionally)?

---------

I'm glad, A.G., that I'm no longer the only one saying that the "sandbagging" issue may be overstated. I agree with a lot of what you had to say there.

[Sean_A]

Erik


I am talking about getting women into golf. 


Sandbagging or not?  I am not sure why this is the question at hand.  The question should be is there unnecessary opportunity to massage handicaps?  Case in point...accepting scores from single golfers.  It was plainly obvious this was an extremely weak link in the security of the US system so it had to go.  That move was obviously in prep for new international system. 


At some point there is little to be gained by a large percentage of golfers with handicaps if there is not a proper way to "certify" the handicap.  Another case in point....are cards exchanged for handicapping purposes in the US?  Or, does a golfer complete his score and ask for the card to be signed?  I think its an important aspect of security to go through the exchange of cards and match scores at the end of the round if handicapping is to be taken seriously. This aspect of the system is much easier when in comps because golfers expect to exchange cards in these situations.  That isn't the case in friendly games. 


Ciao

[Pete Lavallee]

Here’s an interesting set of data from Coronado GC in San Diego. The Club is very popular with a 5 year wait to get into either the Men’s or Ladies Club. For the monthly weekend Tournaments, all some form of medal play, we use tournament handicaps when needed. Tournament handicaps use the best 5 out of the last 10 Tournament rounds limited to one year back. You play to whatever is lower, your actual index or tournament handicap.


-7-8    1
-6-7    1
-4-5    1
-3-4    10
-2-3    17
-1-2    31
-0-1    59
Same  318
+0-1   59
+1-2       39
+2-3       31
+3-4       18
+4-5       11
+5-6       6
+6-7       6
+7-8       5
+8-9       3
+12-13    1
+14-15    1
+15-16    1

So out of 619 members 318 haven’t played in a Tournament for over a year and theoretically don’t need a handicap! A very US thing.

181 golfers underperform as opposed to 120 who play better in Tournaments.

The 13 golfers at the top of the list go into the Tournament with at least 3-8 less shots than they would have had, very significant.
The golfers at the bottom of the list have very high handicaps.

[Tom Kelly]

As I said previously, I am a bit mystified about the urgency for an international handicapping deal. I would have thought the resources were better spent on getting women into the game.

Ciao

I agree completely.


My guess is that the R&A/England Golf etc are more concerned about the international handicap system as it makes it easier for them when running high level amateur events and determining entries from across the world which is becoming more and more common. Unfortunately I don't think they have really thought it through completely and the likely impact (detrimental in my opinion) it will have on the average golfer in the UK and other R&A governed countries.

[A.G._Crockett]

Put me solidly in the camp of those who believe that the issue of sandbagging in the existing U.S. system is VASTLY overblown.  And that's not without some data; the USGA estimates, I believe, that there are at least three vanity handicappers for every true sandbagger.
And I say "true" sandbagger because in my experience, the guys that I've known over the years who have been accused of it, have, with one exception, been legitimate indexes who simply played really good golf.  More to the point, perhaps, is that they are guys who simply play by the Rules; they take full strokes under ESC, they putt out, they play the ball down, they take stroke and distance penalties, and so on.  Further, the guys accusing them are often the vanity guys that do NOT do that stuff, then post a lot of scores that are just too low for an index they have no chance of playing to in competition.
The end-of-the-year Carolinas Golf Association Fourball Tournament of Champions was held earlier this month at Pinehurst.  In the Super Senior (65+), the net winner as a team on which on of the guys shot a gross 75 and was getting 13 strokes, for a net 62.  He MUST be a sandbagger, except he isn't.  I've played with him many times, and he's a legit 13 BY THE RULES who plays a lot of competitive golf and had a GREAT day.  But there were people screaming, no doubt about it.
Vanity handicappers want you to think more of them than they really are.  Sandbaggers want you to think less of them than they really are.  Which sort of person do you think there's more of in the world and the game of golf? 

Right, and it ain't even close.

AG, I hear you, but then again, I go to data when and where available.
The internet, the iPad, and the GHIN system gives me that at my fingertips.


For guys at your club, you can track their index. Watch what date the member/member tourney is...THE money event at most clubs. Then watch the trending of handicaps the previous two months as it hits a club-wide apex on, as an aexample, June 1 for a June 14/15 two day tourney.


The event ends then watch as many of the indexes slide back to where they were in April.


Yes, I’m jaded as I don’t get any strokes from anyone at my club...
I have never competed well in any of the “socialist events” where charity strokes are given to the less fortunate... ...just to make them feel like they can give you a game....😉


I wish more clubs of all natures adhered to more strict guidelines for score posting.

Ian,I think the bolded sentence is the key to your opinion, and in MY experience at least, the opinion of most low handicappers about net competitions.
The entire purpose of the handicap system, of course, is to equalize competition between players of widely different skill levels.  Which means that really good players are, at times, going to lose to chops.  And in a large-field event, that becomes VERY likely, for the simple reason that better players tend to score within a tighter range.  If you have a lot of mid to high handicappers, whose scores vary far more anyway, it becomes almost a certainty that one of them have a great day and win the net division.  At which point, the sandbagging chorus from the predictably upset low handicappers begins full throat.
I'd add this: The system was devised primarily, I think, for individual match play, and still works best that way.  If you play against an INDIVIDUAL with a 12 index, it isn't mathematically likely that he'll have a great day THAT day.  But if you're in a field against 20 guys with double digit indexes, then the odds flip, as do your chances of winning net.
I spent a number of years as the president of the MGA at a golf-only club, and I was never disappointed in the expectation of bitching by the low index guys (and we had a LOT of them!) when they got lost in a net competition to a hack (and we had a lot of them, too!)  Eventually, my answer became, "Then maybe you shouldn't play in a handicapped competition."  It always caught them by surprise.
Like you, I am averse to losing to lesser players.  I've found two simple ways to avoid that, however; one is to play better, and the other is to not play net competitions.  But blaming the system as being "socialist" is sort of misguided, isn't it?

[Jay Mickle]

Ian,I think the bolded sentence is the key to your opinion, and in MY experience at least, the opinion of most low handicappers about net competitions.
The entire purpose of the handicap system, of course, is to equalize competition between players of widely different skill levels.  Which means that really good players are, at times, going to lose to chops.  And in a large-field event, that becomes VERY likely, for the simple reason that better players tend to score within a tighter range.  If you have a lot of mid to high handicappers, whose scores vary far more anyway, it becomes almost a certainty that one of them have a great day and win the net division.  At which point, the sandbagging chorus from the predictably upset low handicappers begins full throat.
I'd add this: The system was devised primarily, I think, for individual match play, and still works best that way.  If you play against an INDIVIDUAL with a 12 index, it isn't mathematically likely that he'll have a great day THAT day.  But if you're in a field against 20 guys with double digit indexes, then the odds flip, as do your chances of winning net.
I spent a number of years as the president of the MGA at a golf-only club, and I was never disappointed in the expectation of bitching by the low index guys (and we had a LOT of them!) when they got lost in a net competition to a hack (and we had a lot of them, too!)  Eventually, my answer became, "Then maybe you shouldn't play in a handicapped competition."  It always caught them by surprise.
Like you, I am averse to losing to lesser players.  I've found two simple ways to avoid that, however; one is to play better, and the other is to not play net competitions.  But blaming the system as being "socialist" is sort of misguided, isn't it?

Best explanation so far. I will add that as a higher handicap play who plays mostly friendly games, my handicap scores are not a true reflection of my potential to score lower. Friendlies are just that. No real pressure to concentrate on the game in the midst of engaging conversation. Additionally in friendly match play I am quite likely to play risky fun shots on the ground or high flop shots around the greens especially if a few holes up ( part of why I believe match play scores should no be included). I am very competitive in organized competitions where concentration will allow me shoot lower scores or may cause me to think too much and post a high number.

[Pete Lavallee]

Don’t your Clubs have Flights to eliminate the high low problem? That seems to work out quite well for both the low and high handicappers. My Clubs all have 4 different Flights.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Put me solidly in the camp of those who believe that the issue of sandbagging in the existing U.S. system is VASTLY overblown.  And that's not without some data; the USGA estimates, I believe, that there are at least three vanity handicappers for every true sandbagger.
And I say "true" sandbagger because in my experience, the guys that I've known over the years who have been accused of it, have, with one exception, been legitimate indexes who simply played really good golf.  More to the point, perhaps, is that they are guys who simply play by the Rules; they take full strokes under ESC, they putt out, they play the ball down, they take stroke and distance penalties, and so on.  Further, the guys accusing them are often the vanity guys that do NOT do that stuff, then post a lot of scores that are just too low for an index they have no chance of playing to in competition.
The end-of-the-year Carolinas Golf Association Fourball Tournament of Champions was held earlier this month at Pinehurst.  In the Super Senior (65+), the net winner as a team on which on of the guys shot a gross 75 and was getting 13 strokes, for a net 62.  He MUST be a sandbagger, except he isn't.  I've played with him many times, and he's a legit 13 BY THE RULES who plays a lot of competitive golf and had a GREAT day.  But there were people screaming, no doubt about it.
Vanity handicappers want you to think more of them than they really are.  Sandbaggers want you to think less of them than they really are.  Which sort of person do you think there's more of in the world and the game of golf? 

Right, and it ain't even close.

AG, I hear you, but then again, I go to data when and where available.
The internet, the iPad, and the GHIN system gives me that at my fingertips.


For guys at your club, you can track their index. Watch what date the member/member tourney is...THE money event at most clubs. Then watch the trending of handicaps the previous two months as it hits a club-wide apex on, as an aexample, June 1 for a June 14/15 two day tourney.


The event ends then watch as many of the indexes slide back to where they were in April.


Yes, I’m jaded as I don’t get any strokes from anyone at my club...
I have never competed well in any of the “socialist events” where charity strokes are given to the less fortunate... ...just to make them feel like they can give you a game....😉


I wish more clubs of all natures adhered to more strict guidelines for score posting.

Ian,I think the bolded sentence is the key to your opinion, and in MY experience at least, the opinion of most low handicappers about net competitions.
The entire purpose of the handicap system, of course, is to equalize competition between players of widely different skill levels.  Which means that really good players are, at times, going to lose to chops.  And in a large-field event, that becomes VERY likely, for the simple reason that better players tend to score within a tighter range.  If you have a lot of mid to high handicappers, whose scores vary far more anyway, it becomes almost a certainty that one of them have a great day and win the net division.  At which point, the sandbagging chorus from the predictably upset low handicappers begins full throat.
I'd add this: The system was devised primarily, I think, for individual match play, and still works best that way.  If you play against an INDIVIDUAL with a 12 index, it isn't mathematically likely that he'll have a great day THAT day.  But if you're in a field against 20 guys with double digit indexes, then the odds flip, as do your chances of winning net.
I spent a number of years as the president of the MGA at a golf-only club, and I was never disappointed in the expectation of bitching by the low index guys (and we had a LOT of them!) when they got lost in a net competition to a hack (and we had a lot of them, too!)  Eventually, my answer became, "Then maybe you shouldn't play in a handicapped competition."  It always caught them by surprise.
Like you, I am averse to losing to lesser players.  I've found two simple ways to avoid that, however; one is to play better, and the other is to not play net competitions.  But blaming the system as being "socialist" is sort of misguided, isn't it?

Thanks for that.
I do get you views.


Funny...qthat sentence was bolded purely by iPad accident.


I fully understand the purpose and 8ntent of the HDCP system and my comments, with cliche emojis, were meant to come across as tongue in cheek sarcasm, not literal statements. I play with guys all the time who range from +3s to 18+ And we enjoy the matches thoroughly.


But that’s not the point.
The point is that we have uncovered sandbagging trends based on data that is verifiable today. This is not conjecture, this is not opinion, this is not suspicion....this is confirmation.


Reject it as you see fit, this is a good debate.
That’s cool.


But, don’t let my data get in the way of your opinions....😉

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Ian,I think the bolded sentence is the key to your opinion, and in MY experience at least, the opinion of most low handicappers about net competitions.
The entire purpose of the handicap system, of course, is to equalize competition between players of widely different skill levels.  Which means that really good players are, at times, going to lose to chops.  And in a large-field event, that becomes VERY likely, for the simple reason that better players tend to score within a tighter range.  If you have a lot of mid to high handicappers, whose scores vary far more anyway, it becomes almost a certainty that one of them have a great day and win the net division.  At which point, the sandbagging chorus from the predictably upset low handicappers begins full throat.
I'd add this: The system was devised primarily, I think, for individual match play, and still works best that way.  If you play against an INDIVIDUAL with a 12 index, it isn't mathematically likely that he'll have a great day THAT day.  But if you're in a field against 20 guys with double digit indexes, then the odds flip, as do your chances of winning net.
I spent a number of years as the president of the MGA at a golf-only club, and I was never disappointed in the expectation of bitching by the low index guys (and we had a LOT of them!) when they got lost in a net competition to a hack (and we had a lot of them, too!)  Eventually, my answer became, "Then maybe you shouldn't play in a handicapped competition."  It always caught them by surprise.
Like you, I am averse to losing to lesser players.  I've found two simple ways to avoid that, however; one is to play better, and the other is to not play net competitions.  But blaming the system as being "socialist" is sort of misguided, isn't it?

All very good stuff AG.

Backed up by charts like this:
http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicap-manual-2012-2015.html#!rule-14410

For a 4 handicap golfer to shoot 8 better than his handicap*, the odds are over 20,000:1. For a 14 handicapper, it's barely 1100:1.

Most events, to curb this sort of thing, should do something like 60-80% handicaps. And again, I think the idea that there are a ton of actual sandbaggers out there is misguided. Wrong. A "feel" more than a "fact."


*Not technically correct, as the chart shows a differential, but I'm trusting y'all to know what I mean given the chart. The same row is used for both.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()